Re: Does 'Feature' = 'Real World Thing'?

Features in ISO/OGC are really just any object that matters in the context of the geographic application(s) that the application schema supports. For example, it is not required that the features have one or more geometry properties. Or in the words of ISO 19109: "The classification of real-world phenomena as features depends on their significance to a particular universe of discourse."

Clemens

> On 22 Oct 2015, at 15:35, Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> On 10/22/2015 12:30, Ed Parsons wrote:
>> So... Can we imagine situations where a "thing" does not have an
>> associated "feature" ?
> 
> hm.  "Thing" is very generic, and in my mind could be what RFC 3986
> calls "resource".  A "resource" can be something real, such as London or
> Big Ben, but also abstract, such as a chemical element, or zero, one,
> infinity.
> 
> I just realised that the dictionary definition of "feature"
> is equally broad.  I have interpreted feature thus far as something
> "spatial", as in "the map showed roads and other features" (WordNet).
> 
> In NeoGeo, we use "geometry" to describe the spatial extent of a
> "feature".  Note that multiple source can provide "geometries" for
> the same "thing/feature" - the polygons from NUTS describing London
> are much more coarse grained than the polygons from GADM, for instance.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas.
>

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 15:24:58 UTC